HUGHES v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS and ANOR [1994] NSWCA 140

HUGHES v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS and ANOR [1994] NSWCA 140

The claimant failed to make out a sufficient case for adjournment despite a change in representation, as the matter had previously been expedited and adequate warning was considered the main issue.

Parties
Claimant: Hughes; Opponent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 1994
Procedural Posture
Summons / Interlocutory Application for Adjournment
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused. Proceed with hearing of summons.

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hughes

Claimant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Summons / Interlocutory Application for Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was given adequate warning by Karpin DCJ about the possible consequences of proceeding with her summons from the magistrate in the Local Court
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of fairness were complied with

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to make out a sufficient case for adjournment despite a change in representation, as the matter had previously been expedited and adequate warning was considered the main issue.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused. Proceed with hearing of summons.

Orders

  • Application for adjournment refused
  • Hearing of summons to proceed